Can we give the toaster one pulsating red eye? You know, for personality._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Can we give the toaster one pulsating red eye? You know, for personality.

I don't see why not.

Though I suspect someone my have already created a hall 9000 toaster._________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

1. Sojobo has argued with me and against me enough to know..decently well what I might find amusing or not. Bitflipper knows nothing about me other than that I am hostile to him. Which brings me to point 2.

2. Bitflipper, you post a lot but it's basically pap, you could gather up everything you've posted on this forum and cram it into the postwhoring thread of dooooom and it would fit right in. This wouldn't be a problem, we have tons of posters who post like that most of the time except you've rubbed me the wrong way ever since your "but the menfolk" post regarding abortion. And so every time you try to post with authority regarding this forums mores, or individuals here that aren't you, it bugs me, your interaction here has been shallow and your time short. Maybe rather than asking everyone what you're doing wrong you shut your yap and pay attention to the dynamic of the forum a bit because well...point three.

Not if they're on an interstellar mining ship and the human has been put in time stasis for refusing to reveal the location of the cat he smuggled aboard!

True; I'd neglected to consider that possibility.

The toaster also needs a flambé setting. Because that glaze would look really cool on toast._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

Last edited by bitflipper on Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

But Sojo's "predictions" aren't worth arguing over; he undermined himself the minute he claimed to know thoughts outside of his own head, making any point he may have had meaningless.

You've witnessed a hundred conversations start on the comic board, where a new guy says something, often surfacely innocuous, and all of us regulars roll our eyes, because we know what is in store for us over the next two pages. Trying to quash it early, by proactively counterarguing the points, is not "claiming to read someone's mind", it's responding to the trajectory the conversation is likely to take. All of your "mindreading" comments are invalid, and you well know it.

When you said that a god must "demonstrably exhibit" moral behaviour, you are mixing together two requirements, that the god must demonstrate his existence, and that he must be moral. The problem is that the second is conditional upon the first, and you really, really don't believe the first will ever be met. So you are really naming just one condition. Adding the second is meaningless.

In your case, the second condition involves making a moral choice that would reflect extraordinarily well upon you. Holding to the second condition would make you, as I have stated, heroically courageous. But you know this will never be tested! It is shallow to confidently claim you would hold true in an extremely difficult hypothetical you know will never happen. That's why I likened it to not accepting Cameron's deal for a blowjob - he will never ask, so you are safe to say you'd refuse, even though we all know you'd go down quicker than his experimental submarine if the deal were actually proffered.

I could have made a somewhat cleaner comparison: Saying you would refuse to worship an immoral God who demands it is like saying if you were a German soldier in WWII, you would have refused when your superiors ordered you to participate in the Holocaust. Were there people who held true? Yes! And they were amazing people! And you trivialize their courage by casually claiming you'd do the same! Ignore everything else in my posts if you wish, but please do take this point on board!

bitflipper wrote:

Add to that his apparent inability to stick to the topic at hand, ranging instead to fellatio,

hee hee

bitflipper wrote:

abortions,

I think everything I said in that post was a repetition of things you've actually said on the forum. It's pretty fair to use quotes from your actual posting history to make fun of you.

bitflipper wrote:

and his braggadocio

I prefer to call it panache.

bitflipper wrote:

Perhaps medication could help, but the evidence of this thread strongly suggests that argument will merely encourage or provoke further random gibberish.

I already explained exactly how my post made sense once. I hope my explanation here, at greater length and with a more polite example, will satisfy you that there is nothing "random" about it.

Does it bother you that the group of people he trolls consists of you and dozens of men's rights advocates in the comic forum? I would really second-guess myself if I found myself in such company._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

When you said that a god must "demonstrably exhibit" moral behaviour, you are mixing together two requirements, that the god must demonstrate his existence, and that he must be moral. The problem is that the second is conditional upon the first,

A logical necessity, yes.

Sojobo wrote:

and you really, really don't believe the first will ever be met.

And prove that you know anything of what I believe. Or "really, really don't believe." Show evidence that you are privy to my thoughts.

To assuage you on the matter of what requirements I claim a god must meet in order to be worthy of my worship, I will strike the term "demonstrably exhibit" and substitute "have reported of him or her, in the same scriptures urged upon me by the deity's followers, a morality superior to my own." As I observed earlier, there have been many notable people in history who have achieved this; I expect no less of a god said to be capable of creating humanity and credited with issuing dictates for our behavior.

All the rest of your outrageous claims you've made in this thread in regard to my comments, I dismiss as the sophomoric trolling they are._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

strange that bitflipper could directly undermine Sojobo's case by making it clear that he does believe a god could and even has demonstrated its existence but it has not proven to be moral enough to warrant his worship. but, like a politician, he continues to evade that one point.

And prove that you know anything of what I believe. Or "really, really don't believe." Show evidence that you are privy to my thoughts.

I have read your post, in which you refered to gods needing to demonstrably exhibit themselves before you worship them. I have concluded that you believe gods need to demonstrably exhibit themselves before you will believe in them. You just explicitly agreed with my logic. Your whinging and moaning about my claiming to read your mind is absurd.

If there is a discrepency between your beliefs and the things that follow by logical necessity (your terms!) from what you've said, then the fault lies with either your beliefs or what you've said.

bitflipper wrote:

To assuage you on the matter of what requirements I claim a god must meet in order to be worthy of my worship, I will strike the term "demonstrably exhibit"

It's not just the term, it's the logical necessity (your terms!) you have just explicitly agreed with. You still would not worship a god you do not believe exists, and you will not believe a god exists until he demonstrates that he exists. The condition is there whether you mention it or not._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

All the rest of your outrageous claims you've made in this thread in regard to my comments, I dismiss as the sophomoric trolling they are.

...

Sojobo wrote:

Well, taking into account the fact that you are an engineer, meaning you are slow to change your mind once it has been made up,

bitflipper wrote:

I can't say that they changed my mind, but that's probably more due to the fact that there are some things about which I am steadfastly stubborn than due to any lack of reasoning or support they gave for their arguments

Sojobo wrote:

and the fact that you are an engineer, so you refuse to admit that there aren't alternate options beyond the obviously moral one,

bitflipper wrote:

In reality, yes, I often refuse to accept that there aren't a whole host of other options beyond the obvious ones. Heck, that's a significant part of my job as an engineer, even.

Sojobo wrote:

and also the fact that you are an engineer, so you think it's just natural for risky actions to have negative consequences:

bitflipper wrote:

Being a responsible adult means considering the consequences of ones choices at the time the choice is made, and consenting to all of those possible consequences at the same time one consents to the choice. Consent isn't just a freedom; it is also a commitment.

Sojobo wrote:

I'd say that what you want for lunch is for men to have their "right" to turning their seed into children to be acknowledged with the legal ability to punish the women they slept with by forcing them to carry fetuses to term

bitflipper wrote:

These people could expect to be compensated if, by some third party's decision, they are deprived of other real and substantial potential for gain (take a look at copyright law or tort law, for a couple examples.) Why, then, should a father-to-be be powerless when deciding the fate of a potential as great as a child?

Sojobo wrote:

because, dammit, they knew what they were getting into.

bitflipper wrote:

So, if either partner is unwilling to see a child born and then to invest the vast amount of effort and money required to raise that child to adulthood, then, kids, keep it in your pants. I don't regard horniness as a sufficient justification for bringing an unwanted child into this world, nor for aborting an inconvenient pregnancy.

_________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

And prove that you know anything of what I believe. Or "really, really don't believe." Show evidence that you are privy to my thoughts.

I have read your post, in which you refered to gods needing to demonstrably exhibit themselves before you worship them. I have concluded that you believe gods need to demonstrably exhibit themselves before you will believe in them. You just explicitly agreed with my logic. Your whinging and moaning about my claiming to read your mind is absurd.

If there is a discrepency between your beliefs and the things that follow by logical necessity (your terms!) from what you've said, then the fault lies with either your beliefs or what you've said.

Perhaps so. Although it is you who seems to be having the difficulty reconciling the logic of sentences with matters of faith.

Sojobo wrote:

When you said that a god must "demonstrably exhibit" moral behaviour, you are mixing together two requirements, that the god must demonstrate his existence, and that he must be moral. The problem is that the second is conditional upon the first,

Upon this, we agree; as phrased, this requires a god to, first, exist, and to, second, demonstrate moral behavior. To make things a little clear, I've changed the phrasing to go with what can materially be presented in argument as evidence of a deity's moral behavior--readings from the scriptures upheld by the deity's adherents.

Sojobo wrote:

and you really, really don't believe the first will ever be met.

And here is where you take the step too far, trying to constrain faith with logic. And, incidentally, making a claim in the process that you cannot support.

Sojobo wrote:

bitflipper wrote:

To assuage you on the matter of what requirements I claim a god must meet in order to be worthy of my worship, I will strike the term "demonstrably exhibit"

It's not just the term, it's the logical necessity (your terms!) you have just explicitly agreed with. You still would not worship a god you do not believe exists, and you will not believe a god exists until he demonstrates that he exists. The condition is there whether you mention it or not.

And, again, this same difficulty. I tell you gently and calmly, Sojobo: you do not know what I believe, what I do not believe, nor what I will do or not do. You haven't even asked. And each time you act based on that apparent belief of yours that you have any knowledge of my own beliefs, you raise an immediate impediment to understanding, and no progress can be hoped to be made beyond that point.

I have offered a concession that should eliminate the logical inconsistency you pointed out in expecting a god not to demonstrate its existence while still demanding a demonstration of its morality. What will you offer in order to move the discussion beyond or around the roadblock of your claim to know my beliefs?_________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning